AuthorTopic: Deleted (Read 5951 times)

I feel these alleged top law schools were really misleading. They all claim to look at other "soft" factors. I figured I have great extracurriculars and volunteer work, unique jobs and internships, graduate school, wonderful recommendations, and an almost perfect GPA from a pretty difficult and highly respected school. In addition, my educational background and jobs were different from 99% of the other applicants. CPA/JDs area rare species. I figured these soft factors might outweigh my slightly low LSAT score (which wasn't too low as it did qualify me for Mensa) and I might have a shot at an ivy school. Not at all. I am absolutely convinced that all these schools look at is LSAT score and race. I wasted all this money applying to schools naively thinking maybe they really do look at soft factors. All I have to say is watch out harvard and yale because when I am done with law school and have money spilling out of my ears, I am going to make the law school I go to the top school in America.

it's probably because you came across as a whiner in your PS. Pony up and post your GPA/LSAT so I subject you to a full evaluation.

gpa 3.9(undergraduate) 4.0 (graduate) and LSAT 164. I do realize my LSAT was a bit low but I figured if there is any candidate admitted based on the soft factors, I would be an pretty good choice. I am not just basing this on me. I have followed this board and LSN pretty religiously and nobody seems to be admitted with a lower lSAT unless they are are URM, no matter what their soft factors are. Why don't these schools just post a cut-off instead of saying they have no cut-off. I truly think that they do.

Alright, I'll bite: What are these magical "soft factors" that you're so sure ought to get you admitted to top schools? The only thing you specifically mention is being a CPA. There's nothing wrong with being an accountant, and some schools certainly might look at that a little more favorably than, say, a fine art major. However, you're going to need something a hell of a lot better than that to overcome an LSAT that, while certainly quite good in the grand scheme of things, is low for the schools you want to attend.

So what's so special about you that schools should take you over people with significantly better numbers (we're talking 10 LSAT points at some of these places), most of whom have impressive extracurriculars/experience as well?

If you've consistently whupped Bobby Fischer [sp?] at chess or done five tours with the Peace Corps while writing a Pulitzer-winning novel about the experience and donated your award to starving orphans, I might tend to agree that you should have gotten into some of these places.

If all you've got is a few years of work experience, some dippy volunteer work and were president of the Young Republicans Swing Choir and Glee Society at your undergrad, you're just going to have accept the fact that you've chosen to enter an extremely competitive game and (gasp!) you can't always be the best at everything.

Alright, normally I'd be much more of an a__hole (I know, some of you find it hard to believe) but since I'm in a semi-good mood I'll respond a little undesmolike.

3.9 / 164 is pretty respectable, very respectable for the majority of schools, that being mid T1 and below. While your 4.0 grad is very good, it's a soft factor. My first thought was you stumbled on the PS and did not convey your aggresiveness towards meeting and exceeding what you put your mind to - as I assume you do based on the 4 yr undergrad / grad, the teaching experience, work effort, etc. I agree that this should push your app above similar numbers, but I think it would be a reach to stack it against a 3.9 / 172 with other extras and expect to win. While CPAs may be rare, accounting generally is not considered as difficult as some of the hard sciences (please LSDers, I am not trying to start another whose major is harder debate) so I do not think this buys you as much as what you hoped. Schools will never publish a cut-off because there will always be the 'flier', that applicant with really poor numbers, but an amazing background - Medal of Honor, Pulitzer, son of major benefactor, etc who they will let in. Based on your numbers and experience I'd guess you be an easy admit for any T2 and most T1s, BUT I still come back to thinking PS and LORs slit your throat on anything higher

Hmm, OP...actually, looking at all of your soft factors, I do agree with you a little bit. Normally I think that soft factors only help when your numbers are already good enough for a school to distinguish you from all of the other people with similar numbers. However, having taught at a B-school and published...those are two very good soft factors. I would be surprised if you didn't get into a school in the Georgetown/Texas/UCLA range. Also, it seems like you would have gotten into Boalt, which stresses GPA so much more than the LSAT.

However, I don't think that it's surprising if you didn't get into a top-10 school. Those schools have TONS of applications from people with great soft factors (even stuff like what you have) with the numbers to match.

I don't mean to sound like a jerk when I say this, but the real question is why didn't you do better on the LSAT? You must be a smart guy, so I'm sure that's not a problem...but dang dude, if you had got above a 170, you would have been a virtual lock for at least one of HYS. I think my main reaction to your plight is that I feel a little bad for you because the admissions process IS way too focused on the LSAT, but on the other hand, I wish I were in your position, because with your soft factors and my willingness to bust my ass studying for the LSAT, I would have gotten into Yale.

In the long run, though, your business experience will make give you a leg up in private practice, so don't forget that.

It sounds like your soft factors sound decent, but it's hard to judge without knowing all the details. The thing to remeber is that these schools also have a stack of applications from people who have higher numbers and the same level of soft factors. Also, your recs may have been the thing to bring you down. You never know what's in those things.

youranidiot

I haven't done anything like a pulizer winning novel...however, I finished my bachelor's and master's degree in 4 years total. And I was teaching my own class in a T1 business school by the age of 21. I also worked 40 hours a week during most of school. I have published some articles. I realize this stuff isn't extraordinary, but I figured it probably better than most candidates and might make up for some LSAT points. Some people are going into this game with no volunteer work, jobs, or extracurriculars.

There is very little that is exceedingly special about you. Accept this fact now.

I got that in a fortune cookie once, it made me sad. However, passing along that wisdom, makes me happy.

Ain't that the truth. When I first started this process I was under the delusion that having my teaching credential made me 'unique'. Ha! I now realize that disgruntled teachers heading to law school are a dime a dozen.

Your reasoning skills are certainly not among your soft factors. Declaring the process of applying to law school 'sketchy' just because you didn't get into the best schools in America DESPITE your low LSAT is just silly. You're asking schools to make a nonquantifiable and subjectively reported series of facts about you the DETERMINING FACTOR in considering your application. You also fail to take into consideration the fact that people with numbers more closely aligned to the schools' 50-75%iles ALSO will bring incredible soft factors to the table.

Casting aspersions devalues the well-deserved accomplishments of more highly qualified admitted students. If you know you're so much better than them - based on your soft factors(which are, to be sure, worthy of respect) - put the same energy and drive to succeed into a more successful preparation for the LSAT, pull out a high 170, and argue next cycle that you had a bad day. Use your soft factors as support for that argument. Until then, quit bitc hing.